The starting point here is not who is worse, but the to me absurd claim that conservatives use triggering language for gain but liberals don't.

I do think, from where I'm standing, that a conservative can build "cred" by deliberately triggering liberals, and do that more successfully than a liberal triggering conservatives. And I think it boils down to the essential way both sides see each other. Conservatives think liberals are too sensitive and they want policies based on feeeeeeelings instead of cold hard facts. Liberals think conservatives are unfeeling monsters and they want policies based on greed rather than compassion. So a conservative can vindicate his team's view by deliberately triggering liberals and then saying, "See, look how oversensitive they are, they'll get upset about anything!" Whereas it doesn't reinforce anything on the liberal side to make conservatives feel hurt.

I do think there are plenty of examples where both liberals and conservatives use equally inflammatory language about each other or try to poke each other with sticks in equal amounts. But the sort of "make a name for yourself within your own team by pissing off the other side" fuels more conservative careers than liberal ones. Liberal careers built on pissing conservatives off are more about the whole "she bravely speaks truth to power and the machine doesn't like her honesty!" rather than anything "triggering."

I have absolutely no links to back this up and this is all just my gut feeling.

The success of Milo and Ben Shapiro. Also, the inexplicable Twitter popularity of "Comfortably Smug."

Also, there's something to be said about the continued support for Ben Domenech, despite multiple plagiarism scandals and the Malaysian government payment stuff, which would have taken down pretty much any respectable left of center writer of similar stature.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

Liberal careers build on pissing conservatives off are more about the whole "she bravely speaks truth to power and the machine doesn't like her honesty!" rather than anything "triggering."

Witness the Parkland children. They are saying the same shit about gun control and the same solutions the left has been pushing my entire adult life but they're brave survivors speaking truth to power instead of traumatized teens regurgitating the same tired arguments.

Right, where "speaking truth to power" means "getting 24/7 media time because everyone in power in mainstream media agrees with them and wants to put people on TV with special license to use inflammatory language."

Another great example of "which would get me shunned at work, saying I went to the March for Our Lives or saying I own a gun?"

The starting point here is not who is worse, but the to me absurd claim that conservatives use triggering language for gain but liberals don't.

So, can you name a post-2001 professional liberal who uses "triggering language" equivalent of Michelle Malkin defending Japanese internment, or Coulter's "Americans on the other side of the political aisle are literally committing treason" (or her calls to repeal women's suffrage, for that matter) or anything similar? Not "a black man criticized Trump's white supremacist comments," more like "a black man explicitly and repeatedly called for any Trump voters (or Klansmen or whatever) to be imprisoned or killed by the state? Any left-wing equivalents of uber-troll Chuck Johnson being embraced by left-wing Senators or Congressmen, the way some right-wingers embraced Johnson? The left-wing equivalent of Steve Bannon, likely to be appointed to the security council of the next Democratic president?

Remember: to qualify, it's not enough for a liberal to merely say something which might offend right-wing sensibilities (simply saying "Hooray for gay marriage" is enough to do that); that liberal has to explicitly call for punishments to be inflicted on their opponents. (In Malkinese terms, it's not enough to say "I bet we 1940s Americans would be safer without those Japs around"; you have to explicitly call for rounding up and imprisoning all American citizens of Japanese descent.) Or, for the example you tried using earlier -- it's not enough for a 2A opponent to merely say "the NRA's a bunch of terrorists" or "gun owners who oppose our ideas clearly love their guns more than children's lives" -- it has to be someone explicitly saying "We should confiscate all guns and execute the gun owners who refuse to comply," and then when asked out it later, specify "No, no, that was not me simply venting or speaking rhetorically; I literally, sincerely want the government to confiscate all guns and execute all citizens who do not comply. By hanging, perhaps." And the speaker has to be a professional, respected pundit, not some random schmuck with a Tumblr account.

And, reminder -- saying "Abortion is murder" is not the same thing as explicitly calling for women who get abortions to be charged with premeditated murder, just as saying "NRA terrorist" is not the same as saying "Any NRA member should be charged with terrorism," and Coates saying "I'm disturbed by how many white people voted for Trump despite the racist things he said" is not synonymous with "Every Trump voter should face criminal charges, or even be executed by the state."

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

The real question is how much prominence those liberals can lay claim to.

"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

The real question is how much prominence those liberals can lay claim to.

Is TNC up there with Ann Coulter among respective righties/lefties?

TNC has signal mixed in with the noise.

And Coulter is one among many; TNC is unusual.

"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

They just relabel their triggering language as "truth speaking". You are telling me Hogg is not lobbing grenades on purpose and that's not why he's a minor celebrity?

I thought he was a minor celebrity because being the teenage survivor of a pretty horrific mass shooting made him and his classmates inherently sympathetic. But if he is the left's equivalent to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Kevin Williamson, which publication is paying him? I know he's a minor celebrity, but that's not synonymous with being a "professional pundit." (I confess I've not paid much attention to him; if he and his classmates openly called for the execution or imprisonment of gun owners, or anything like that, I missed it.)

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

The milo and shapiro moment, perhaps milo in particular, was a moment of "we support any statement that pisses liberals off". Like I said, these days the trump coalition will say anything to make liberals mad whether they believe it or not. Liberals believe what they say, but that does not reduce the intensity of their incendiary "triggering" language. It just okay to call the NRA murderers and terrorists because ... it just is. You say the intent is not to trigger when you do that, then all the gyrations start to make it somehow not "really" triggering on purpose because they aren't intentionally mean they are dumb ... stop. They are saying full on monstrous things about the other team that are unfair by any reasonable assessment using extreme language. The results of the last election and the reaction you have now is the behavior or people who have been triggered. So, is it like targets of lefty rhetoric can't be triggered they need to grow a pair but poor donkeys just mean well why be mean?

Mind, it is ironic that right wingy types with the masculinity and all get triggered, but that doesn't mean the tactic isn't being employed. It very obviously is.

They just relabel their triggering language as "truth speaking". You are telling me Hogg is not lobbing grenades on purpose and that's not why he's a minor celebrity?

I thought he was a minor celebrity because being the teenage survivor of a pretty horrific mass shooting made him and his classmates inherently sympathetic. But if he is the left's equivalent to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Kevin Williamson, which publication is paying him? I know he's a minor celebrity, but that's not synonymous with being a "professional pundit." (I confess I've not paid much attention to him; if he and his classmates openly called for the execution or imprisonment of gun owners, or anything like that, I missed it.)

There are lots of survivors, some who were even at the school ... why is he the one who keeps getting shine? Maybe because he does this?

"“They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.”'

The milo and shapiro moment, perhaps milo in particular, was a moment of "we support any statement that pisses liberals off". Like I said, these days the trump coalition will say anything to make liberals mad whether they believe it or not. Liberals believe what they say, but that does not reduce the intensity of their incendiary "triggering" language. It just okay to call the NRA murderers and terrorists because ... it just is.

So, then, you genuinely do NOT see a distinction between saying "the NRA's a bunch of murderers" versus "members of the NRA should be executed by the state?" Or, for that matter, you do not see a distinction between "abortion is murder" and "people who get abortions should be prosecuted for murder?"

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

They just relabel their triggering language as "truth speaking". You are telling me Hogg is not lobbing grenades on purpose and that's not why he's a minor celebrity?

I thought he was a minor celebrity because being the teenage survivor of a pretty horrific mass shooting made him and his classmates inherently sympathetic. But if he is the left's equivalent to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Kevin Williamson, which publication is paying him? I know he's a minor celebrity, but that's not synonymous with being a "professional pundit." (I confess I've not paid much attention to him; if he and his classmates openly called for the execution or imprisonment of gun owners, or anything like that, I missed it.)

There are lots of survivors, some who were even at the school ... why is he the one who keeps getting shine? Maybe because he does this?

"“They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.”'

Since when is he the only one? Looks like all the kids who bother to speak are getting noticed; that's the only reason I know who "Emma Gonzalez" is. (Not to mention all the sympathy points they are getting from right-wingers who are MORE than old enough to know better, yet they think it's a good look for them to publicly insult teenaged survivors of a mass shooting. Who was the idiot who made some snide remark about how Hogg needs to grow some pubic hair before he can be taken seriously? Or the idiot who insulted him for not getting into the college of his choice?)

I notice you continue to not identify the professional left-wing equivalents to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh et al. But you're still absolutely convinced they exist, right? It's just that you cannot identify them because -- what, they operate in the shadows?

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

No, I don't see much of a difference, especially in the larger context of the Williamson quote, the part where he doesn't support capital punishment at all - that part you keep ignoring.

No, I don't ignore that part, because if nothing else he does support lengthy prison terms for women who get abortions -- same as any premeditated murderer gets. And I've mentioned that repeatedly.

But -- okay, you do not and cannot see the distinction between saying "abortion is murder" versus "women who get abortions should be prosecuted for murder." Do you at least understand that most people DO make a pretty strong distinction between the two, even if it's a distinction you personally cannot or will not discern?

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

No, I don't see much of a difference, especially in the larger context of the Williamson quote, the part where he doesn't support capital punishment at all - that part you keep ignoring.

No, I don't ignore that part, because if nothing else he does support lengthy prison terms for women who get abortions -- same as any premeditated murderer gets. And I've mentioned that repeatedly.

But -- okay, you do not and cannot see the distinction between saying "abortion is murder" versus "women who get abortions should be prosecuted for murder." Do you at least understand that most people DO make a pretty strong distinction between the two, even if it's a distinction you personally cannot or will not discern?

I think those people are deluding themselves. If you make hate speech a crime, gun ownership a crime, or abortion a crime, you are implying things when you say you want to do that. We should not pretend otherwise.

No, I don't see much of a difference, especially in the larger context of the Williamson quote, the part where he doesn't support capital punishment at all - that part you keep ignoring.

No, I don't ignore that part, because if nothing else he does support lengthy prison terms for women who get abortions -- same as any premeditated murderer gets. And I've mentioned that repeatedly.

But -- okay, you do not and cannot see the distinction between saying "abortion is murder" versus "women who get abortions should be prosecuted for murder." Do you at least understand that most people DO make a pretty strong distinction between the two, even if it's a distinction you personally cannot or will not discern?

I think those people are deluding themselves. If you make hate speech a crime, gun ownership a crime, or abortion a crime, you are implying things when you say you want to do that. We should not pretend otherwise.

A definition of "people deluding themselves" that applies to the majority of people who exist is pretty much useless. Going back to something I said, repeatedly, upthread -- it is not and was not "hypocrisy," exactly, which made that anti-medical marijuana legislator sincerely offended when I asked her how long a certain paraplegic professor should spend in prison. And it is not "hypocrisy" which makes a lot of abortion opponents say "Abortion is murder -- but no, that does NOT mean I want women who have abortions to go to prison!" It's because most people -- even intelligent people -- don't necessarily think things through. The typical anti-abortion person who is horrified by Williamson's suggestion -- no, that person is NOT being a "hypocrite," exactly, for shying away from the horrible implications of what they say they want.

And that is why Williamson, Coulter, Malkin and other right-wingers horrify so many people -- because rather than shy away from the bad implications of what they think they want, they openly embrace the badness! As Eric said upthread, they know their proposed laws will hurt people, and they either don't care, or they actively WANT it.

And that's why so many people say today's professional right-wingers are worse than today's professional left. You don't see the difference but it IS there. It's like one of those colorblind people who can't discern between red and green, and you hear people arguing over whether a certain traffic light was installed rightside-up or upside-down, and you can't see any difference between the two lights but trust me -- there IS a difference, and most people are able to see it even if you can't. For people who can see the difference between red and green, it does matter that red is supposed to be on top of the traffic light. And for most people, there IS a difference between someone who says "Abortion is murder" versus "Women who get abortions should be tried as murderers." For most people, there is also a difference between "The NRA is a bunch of terrorists" and "Members of the NRA should be criminally prosecuted as terrorists." Maybe you can't see the difference, but it's there.

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

They just relabel their triggering language as "truth speaking". You are telling me Hogg is not lobbing grenades on purpose and that's not why he's a minor celebrity?

I thought he was a minor celebrity because being the teenage survivor of a pretty horrific mass shooting made him and his classmates inherently sympathetic. But if he is the left's equivalent to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Kevin Williamson, which publication is paying him? I know he's a minor celebrity, but that's not synonymous with being a "professional pundit." (I confess I've not paid much attention to him; if he and his classmates openly called for the execution or imprisonment of gun owners, or anything like that, I missed it.)

There are lots of survivors, some who were even at the school ... why is he the one who keeps getting shine? Maybe because he does this?

"“They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.”'